Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26879688›Full record

ArticleToxicologic pathology2016

Recommendations from the INHAND Apoptosis/Necrosis Working Group.

Susan A Elmore, Darlene Dixon, James R Hailey, Takanori Harada, Ronald A Herbert, Robert R Maronpot, Thomas Nolte, Jerold E Rehg, Susanne Rittinghausen, Thomas J Rosol and 4 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicologic pathology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

84 citing papers in PubMed, 173 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Glycoprotein Mucin 13 Expression as a Theranostic Target in Colorectal Cancer.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. TheFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Mathematical Descriptions of Damage to Cells and Tissues Following Heating.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Structural Regeneration and Functional Recovery of the Olfactory System of Adult Zebrafish Following Brain Injury.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

24 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Susan A ElmoreCellular and Molecular Pathology Branch, National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA elmore@niehs.nih.gov.
Darlene DixonMolecular Pathogenesis Group, National Toxicology Program Laboratory, Division of the NTP, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
James R HaileyCovance Inc., Chantilly, Virginia, USA.
Takanori HaradaThe Institute of Environmental Toxicology, Joso-shi, Ibaraki, Japan.
Ronald A HerbertCellular and Molecular Pathology Branch, National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Robert R MaronpotMaronpot Consulting LLC, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
Thomas NolteBoehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Biberach an der Riss, Germany.
Jerold E RehgDepartment of Pathology, St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Susanne RittinghausenFraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine ITEM, Hannover, Germany.
Thomas J RosolDepartment of Veterinary Biosciences, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Hiroshi SatohIwate University, Morioka, Iwate, Japan.
Justin D VidalVet Path Services Inc. (VPS), Mason, Ohio, USA.
Cynthia L Willard-MackEnvigo, East Millstone, New Jersey, USA.
Dianne M CreasyEnvigo, East Millstone, New Jersey, USA.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences · USPerrigo (United States) · USBoehringer Ingelheim (Germany) · DECovance (United States) · USFraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine · DEIwate University · JPSt. Jude Children's Research Hospital · USThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

Pathobiology Of Uterine Leiomyomas (fibroids)ZIAES021196 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI DIXON, DARLENE · 2009 to 2025
$31.7M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 ES999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Historically, there has been confusion relating to the diagnostic nomenclature for individual cell death. Toxicologic pathologists have generally used the terms "single cell necrosis" and "apoptosis" interchangeably. Increased research on the mechanisms of cell death in recent years has led to the understanding that apoptosis and necrosis involve different cellular pathways and that these differences can have important implications when considering overall mechanisms of toxicity, and, for these reasons, the separate terms of apoptosis and necrosis should be used whenever differentiation is possible. However, it is also recognized that differentiation of the precise pathway of cell death may not be important, necessary, or possible in routine toxicity studies and so a more general term to indicate cell death is warranted in these situations. Morphological distinction between these two forms of cell death can sometimes be straightforward but can also be challenging. This article provides a brief discussion of the cellular mechanisms and morphological features of apoptosis and necrosis as well as guidance on when the pathologist should use these terms. It provides recommended nomenclature along with diagnostic criteria (in hematoxylin and eosin [H&E]-stained sections) for the most common forms of cell death (apoptosis and necrosis). This document is intended to serve as current guidance for the nomenclature of cell death for the International Harmonization of Nomenclature and Diagnostic Criteria Organ Working Groups and the toxicologic pathology community at large. The specific recommendations are:Use necrosis and apoptosis as separate diagnostic terms.Use modifiers to denote the distribution of necrosis (e.g., necrosis, single cell; necrosis, focal; necrosis, diffuse; etc.).Use the combined term apoptosis/single cell necrosis whenThere is no requirement or need to split the processes, orWhen the nature of cell death cannot be determined with certainty, orWhen both processes are present together. The diagnosis should be based primarily on the morphological features in H&E-stained sections. When needed, additional, special techniques to identify and characterize apoptosis can also be used.

Indexed as

ApoptosisNecrosisTerminology as TopicAnimalsMaleMicePathologyRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyToxicologyapoptosiscell deathguidanceINHANDnecrosissingle cell necrosis

Identifiers

PMID26879688
PMCPMC4785073
OpenAlexW2283080431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.